Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Clinton to Start $1 Billion Renewable Energy Fund

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the that's-a-lot-of-batteries dept.

antifoidulus writes "ABC news is reporting that former President Bill Clinton has announced the creation of a $1 Billion investment fund devoted to renewable energy. This will be an investment fund as opposed to charity, and Clinton has said that 'The Green Fund would focus on reducing dependence on fossil fuels, creating jobs, lessening pollution and helping to reduce global warming, all while making a profit.' Former World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn will be managing the fund."

37 of 177 comments (clear)

  1. Finally... by HoosierPeschke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Someone is doing something. But our problem is we rely so much on fossil fuels that large industries are built around it (automotive, gas stations, refineries). Even though fossil fuels may be deemed as evil the working guy/gal at these places would probably like to remain employed.

    Moving away from fossil fuels may be for the greater good but we can't forget about the side effects that will have.

    --
    Mr. Universe: "They can't stop the signal, Mal. They can never stop the signal."
    1. Re:Finally... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Someone is doing something

      There has been a lot of talk here in .au about our prime minister sucking to to GWB, particularly on environmental issues. Now there is talk of even GWB doing a U turn on energy policy. John Howard is going to look soooo stupid. I hope.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    2. Re:Finally... by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even though fossil fuels may be deemed as evil the working guy/gal at these places would probably like to remain employed.

      I'm perfectly willing to teach them to fix/build bicycles, show them what sort of fuel/comfort stations cyclists would find useful and spend money at, what sort of road system would better suit cyclists rather than cars, how human muscle can be used to transport goods, make electricity, etc.

      "Paradigm shifts" always result in increased employment, although to take advantage of them one might have to learn some new skills.

      For many of the workers in the car based economy these new "skills" would amount to nothing more than learning the new set of lies appropriate to selling the new product.

      KFG

    3. Re:Finally... by kfg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      . . .without a car, I would be fscked.

      So would I. Just because I don't own 'em doesn't imply that I don't use 'em. That's why there are jobs to be found in the enterprise.

      Will you help me too?

      Yes, I will. Although. . .I may well charge you for it. It would be my job.

      The route to my job is 50km long each way, and in the winter the temperature drops to -25C.

      About the same as the local conditions I have operated under. I can show you solutions, some of which would . . .creat jobs.

      Remember that jobs are the context? Bicycles are not "free." They require support systems just like cars, and thus people to operate those support systems.

      Jobs.

      KFG

    4. Re:Finally... by hamburger+lady · · Score: 2, Insightful

      first off, 2 years is not 'just in time'. in politics, 2 years is for fuckin ever.

      second, the democratic party isn't 'in deep trouble'. they seem to be holding their own against the GOP in spite of a cohesive plan for most everything. i'd say the GOP is starting to slip down the slope into 'deep trouble' territory.

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
  2. Where do I sign up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Besides being a great investment with a likely massive return, something like this would make me feel a lot better about investing in managed accounts. Some of these funds you have no idea what kinds of companies you're gonna end up owning peices of-- and quite honestly, there's a lot of 'em that might have some chance of return (oil company, anyone?) but it just isn't worth the guilt...

    1. Re:Where do I sign up? by LaughingCoder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Besides being a great investment with a likely massive return

      The concept is not new. "Green" mutual funds have been around forever. They all have the same thing in common ... poor returns. Now, this doesn't make it a bad idea, and perhaps with Clinton's name attached to it that may boost awareness somewhat, but I think anyone who invests in this fund needs to think of it as "doing the right thing" for a small return, rather than treating it like a "real" investment. Of course knowing how ambitious the Clintons are, once can't help but suspect this is more about Hilary's run in 2008 than it is about saving the planet.

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    2. Re:Where do I sign up? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Informative

      The concept is not new. "Green" mutual funds have been around forever. They all have the same thing in common ... poor returns.

      I call bullshit. The very first green fund I found via searching google for performance green "mutual fund" was the Winslow Green Growth fund (WGGFX) which has outperformed the S&P and DOW indices by over 30%. Since most managed funds (at least 80% of them) fail to even match market indices, clearly not ALL green funds have poor returns.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:Where do I sign up? by LaughingCoder · · Score: 2, Informative

      Source: http://www.greencentury.com/funds/performance.aspx

      Green Century Balanced Fund 10 year return: 7.71%
      Green Century Equity Fund 10 year return: 6.93%
      S&P 500 Index Fund 10 year return: 8.31%

      The numbers look alot worse if you consider 1, 3 or 5 year returns.

      Here's another one: http://www.domini.com/domini-funds/Domini-Social-E quity-Fund/index.htm

      I couldn't find their 10 year return, but their 5 year is 3.12%. The S&P 500 Index 5 year return is 4.65%.


      For reference, a few well-known, "non-socially responsible" funds to look at:

      Fidelity Contra 5 year: 10.09%
      Fidelity Balanced 10 year: 11.30%
      Fidelity Contra 5 year: 8.94%
      Fidelity Balanced 10 year: 11.30%

      So the first 2 examples of green funds that I found underperform a simple broad-based index, and significantly underperform some well-known broad-based equity funds (one of which is a balanced fund which sacrifices capital appreciation to boost income).

      I will grant you your point, however, challenging my assertion that *all* green funds have poor returns, since you found a (rather nice) counter-example. But I believe that generally these types of socially-conscious funds inevitably wind up sacrificing returns for "principals".

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    4. Re:Where do I sign up? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But I believe that generally these types of socially-conscious funds inevitably wind up sacrificing returns for "principals".

      Considering that in general most funds, socially-conscious or not, underperform the market indices, I think your conclusions are erroneous. I don't have the data to do a comprehensive survey, but considering that it is easy enough to find other high-performing socially-conscious funds like the paxworld family, I'm more willing to believe that the group of such funds as a whole at least mirrors the general market for funds than I am to believe that it trails it.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    5. Re:Where do I sign up? by scoove · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thanks LaughingCoder for a good response to the "I call BS" poster. Readers who don't understand finance should be well served by your post.

      One point I'd also add to your comment about returns is that this data does not include expense ratios, which are usually significantly higher than average in managed green funds. Part of this is due to the funds not getting near as much capital (due to the market's awareness that they deliver poor returns historically) as other funds, so the fund's costs are spread across less invested dollars. There may be other factors that increase the costs as well.

      I work with emerging markets analysis and am careful about fund expenses as I would hope all investors would be. While the Green Century Equity Fund (GCEQX) delivers a 7% return, it has a 1.5% expense ratio PLUS taxes that are distributed to the investor (which need to be accounted for as well). Your best return is actually 5.5% pre-tax consideration, and as mutual funds pass on their tax costs from trading, you really should consider that as well.

      An alternative (that has its own pros and cons) for someone who is determined to invest in clean energy is something like PowerShares Clean Energy WilderHill ETF PBW. Read up on exchange traded fundss on someplace like Morningstar if you're not familiar with index investing. While I'm not recommending the clean energy sector, I'd suggest that if you're totally determined to invest in it for your own reasons, you at least look at lower expense opportunities like an ETF (in this case, the expense ratio is 0.6%). Otherwise, you'll be paying some firm to have well paid managers delivering lousy returns which is a real shame. And if you're prudent, you won't expect a positive return on your green investments - the sector has too much new venture risk, is very exposed to crude market risk (e.g. if other energy forms become significantly cheaper again, nobody buys their products), and in most cases this leads to liquidity and ultimately solvency risk. In a nutshell, the normal volatility storms of the energy market is too much for these little boats to weather.

    6. Re:Where do I sign up? by KenSeymour · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps non-green corporations can financially out perform green ones because they can pass on the environmental costs on to future generations and the government.

      Iron Mountain Mine in northern California. It is an abondoned open pit pyrite mine. Whenever it rains, it produces sulphuric acid, combined with heavy metals, which would eventually feed into the Sacramento River, if it were not for two intervening dams. During heavy rains, the polution does get past the dams before being sufficiently diluted.

      For the rest of time, someone will have to operate a combination of a lime neutralization plant on site, combined with releases of water from the dams timed with large seasonal flows from Shasta Dam. This site was actively mined off and on from the 1860s through 1963. At one time, the site was the largest producer of copper in California.

      Another EPA document gives a explanation of the problem, photos of the neutralization plant, and some history. Here is a quote from that document:

      When extraction of the ore was suspended from the
      various stopes above the Lawson, the ground was in
      very bad shape, and the conditions regarding heat
      and gas were so terrible that it seemed advisable to
      abandon any attempt to work from that level.
      In fact it was a case of walking away and leaving the
      job for the next generation" (William F. Kett,
      General Manager, Mountain Copper Co., August 1944)

      Mining at the site was abondoned, at least in part, because the ground became too unstable to mine it anymore. So when the mine was operated, the company was profitable. I don't know the relationship of the company that did the mining to the current owner of the site.
      But it is possbile for a company to cease to exist once the mine is worn out. So the companies that mined this site were profitable while the mine was open, mostly by avoiding paying for the environmental damage they caused.

      The EPA has successfully gone after the current owner of the site. In my mind, it is not fair to have a company that did not create the problem pay for cleaning it up. But it is also not fair to have taxpayers pay for it either. Once all the ore is gone and the mining company folds, there is no way to go back and make the owners pay for the damage they caused.

      So maybe green companies might underperform non-green companies TODAY. But that is true because often they can skip out on paying all the costs of their activites. The Sacramento River provides drinking water for a significant portion of the population of California. I was astonished when I heard of this site.

      --
      "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
    7. Re:Where do I sign up? by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      But I believe that generally these types of socially-conscious funds inevitably wind up sacrificing returns for "principals".
      As another poster pointed out, the performance differential is in part because green funds are more likely to invest in businesses that are willing to absorb the costs that they could have simply passed on to the rest of society. If we assume that Fidelity and Green Century are run by equally capable and equally lucky groups of people, then the difference between the rates of return is entirely due to the rat-bastardy behavior of the companies that Fidelity is willing to invest in but Green century is not.

      If you're willing to sacrifice principles for a slightly higher rate of return, then you never had the former and don't deserve the latter.
      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

  3. He went on Fox News to Talk about this... by macadamia_harold · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Clinton taped an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace about this today, which is scheduled to be aired Sunday. The interview is supposed to be about the energy initiative, and his charitable work; instead, Chris Wallace ambushes him out of left field with some bullshit hardball question about Osama Bin Laden.

    It's hilarious, because not only does Clinton attempt a diplomatic answer, but when Chris Wallace won't let it go and birddogs him, Clinton completely pwns Wallace, then goes back on topic.

    I'm curious to see if they actually air it.

    --
    Push Button, Receive Bacon
    1. Re:He went on Fox News to Talk about this... by HoosierPeschke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's the funniest thing I've read in awhile. I wasn't a fan of Clinton when he was the President, but am more now with all the charity he's doing. And it's always a pleasure to watch ANY media get punked.

      --
      Mr. Universe: "They can't stop the signal, Mal. They can never stop the signal."
    2. Re:He went on Fox News to Talk about this... by macadamia_harold · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep. Too bad, once they actually had Bin Laden cornered, Clinton decided not to do anything because he was afraid that it would look like we was trying to distract the nation from his sexual indescretions.

      Yeah, Bush's strategy of waiting around until Osama keels over from natural causes was much better.

      --
      Push Button, Receive Bacon
    3. Re:He went on Fox News to Talk about this... by OoSync · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If Clinton (and Bush) wanted to reduce the USA's dependence on foreign oil, they would have raised the nation's average vehicle fuel economy.

      Fuel economy is one thing, but so are emmissions.



      A decision was made many years ago to forgoe many significant advances in fuel economy in favor of reducing emmissions. The last I heard, California's had a dramatic decrease in smog and increase in air quality. The Prius, though known and marketed for its fuel economy, is also marketed for its "Near Zero Emmissions" rating.



      Priorities and all that . . . .

      --

      I always get the shakes before a drop.
  4. Re:Why? by hdw · · Score: 5, Funny

    How typical of a socialist to start pumping money into airy fairy 'long term solutions' instead of letting market forces sort it out.

    This is actually a good way forward, but only if the cost distribution is handled correctly.

    For instance that the cost of using fossile fuels also bear the cost of an equal amount of CO2 reduction.
    So that each link in the production, consumption and disposal link carries it's own costs to bring the enviromental impact to neutral.

    That's a working market model.

    // hdw

    --
    Executive Pope (small) Kallisti Engineering
  5. Clinton had sex with Argonne Labs IFR by cdn-programmer · · Score: 2, Informative

    Clinton seems to have had sex with Argonne Labs Integral Fast Reactor... and next we'll be hearing he didn't have sex with the energy fund. He just created the problem.

    It was the Clinton Administration that shut down the Argonne Lab's IFR development program in 1994. This reactor design will do more to solve the coming world energy crisis than anything else...and Clinton did have sex with it!

    Read the congressional report: Nov. 6, 1997 (Senate) Page S11890-S11891 here: http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/Argonne_News/news9 7/crtill.html

    Quote:

    Unfortunately, this program was canceled just 2 short years before the proof of concept. I assure my colleagues someday our Nation will regret and reverse this shortsighted decision.

    If anyone wants to read the PBS interview with Dr. Charles Till - look here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reac tion/interviews/till.html

    Quote from the PBS interview:

    The Clinton administration, I think, firmed up quite an anti-nuclear power position....

    Q: What will be our energy source, then?

    A:    I think that many engineers would agree that there is limited, additional gain to be had from conservation. After all, what does one mean by "conservation?" One simply means using less and using less more efficiently. And there have been considerable gains wrung out of the energy supply and energy usage over the past couple of decades. We can probably go somewhat further. But you're talking, you know, 10% or 20%. Whereas over the next 50 years, it can be confidently predicted that with the energy growth in this country alone, and much more so around the world, it would be 100%, 200%, or some very large number.

    And so what energy source steps in? There is only one. It's fossil fuel. It's coal. It's oil. It's natural gas. Some limited additional use of the more exotic forms of things, like solar and wind. But they are, after all, very limited in what they can do. So it will be fossil.

    Now the question, of course, immediately becomes, well, how long can that last? And everyone has a different opinion on that. One thing that is certain, and that is that the increase in the use of fossil fuels will sharply increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Another thing is certain. You will put a lot more pollutants into the atmosphere as well, in addition to carbon dioxide, which one could argue the greenhouse effect exists or doesn't exist. ...

    So it is very clear that the consequences of short sighted anti-nuclear policies of the Clinton Adminitration were well understood in the early 90's. The lack of solutions to the problems we face now are a direct result of Clinton's administration.

    ----------

    Note the Integral Fast Reactor burns nuclear wastes and will extend the existing uranium fuel stockpile (called Depleated Uranium, spent fuel, and nuclear waste) to over 60,000 years for the existing fleet of over 100 reactors in the Gigawatt range.... and this without mining any more uranium.

    The IFR burns all actinides and hense there are no long term wastes... only light isotopes with 1/2 lives of a few decades at most, and which are used industrially for things like pipe line xrays.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor

    When we are in the throws of the worst energy crisis mankind has ever seen, then I want everyone to look and Clinton's contribution to the problem. I think the quote from the congressional report (above) sums it up nicely.

    The short of it is that its prefectly clear we need alternatives to fossil fuels and the issue is that we needed to start developing these alternatives 15 and 20 years ago. It

  6. We could do so much better by bhmit1 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The United States uses 360 million US liquid gallons (1.36 gigalitres) of gasoline each day.
    If the above wikipedia entry is accurate, that would mean raising the gas tax by 3 pennies would raise the same amount of funds per day. It would also make alternatives more competitive and ensure that as long as we are dependent on fossil fuels, the renewable energy has a source of funding. As an added bonus, people that adopt new technologies aren't taxed and the tax will eventually disappear.

    I'm saying this as a libertarian, someone that hates taxes and big government. But this is exactly where government regulations and taxes should be used, when the free market doesn't value the environment and causes long term damage without intervention.
    1. Re:We could do so much better by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I love windmills. I hate windfarms. Windmills are a viable energy independence technology. Stop thinking that energy necessarily has to come from some massively centralized third party.

      Make . . . your . . .own.

      KFG

  7. Jimmy Carter by Stalyn · · Score: 5, Informative
    Actually the only President who tried to do anything about our dependence on foreign oil was Jimmy Carter. But of course everyone hates Jimmy Carter.

    What I have to say to you now about energy is simple and vitally important.

    Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade -- a saving of over 4-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day.

    Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my presidential authority to set import quotas. I'm announcing tonight that for 1979 and 1980, I will forbid the entry into this country of one drop of foreign oil more than these goals allow. These quotas will ensure a reduction in imports even below the ambitious levels we set at the recent Tokyo summit.

    Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel -- from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun. ...

    Point four: I'm asking Congress to mandate, to require as a matter of law, that our nation's utility companies cut their massive use of oil by 50 percent within the next decade and switch to other fuels, especially coal, our most abundant energy source.

    Point five: To make absolutely certain that nothing stands in the way of achieving these goals, I will urge Congress to create an energy mobilization board which, like the War Production Board in World War II, will have the responsibility and authority to cut through the red tape, the delays, and the endless roadblocks to completing key energy projects.

    We will protect our environment. But when this nation critically needs a refinery or a pipeline, we will build it.

    Point six: I'm proposing a bold conservation program to involve every state, county, and city and every average American in our energy battle. This effort will permit you to build conservation into your homes and your lives at a cost you can afford.

                --- Jimmy Carter, from his televised speech on July 15, 1979.

    --
    The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
  8. Re:Wasn't this $ from Virgin Air's n-Years' profit by bfree · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As soon as I saw the headline I thought "stupid USlAshdot again". I have to trawl down to your comment to find a mention of Branson's $3 billion pledge . So not only does the story not ascribe the cash to it's source, it doesn't even get the figure right.

    --

    Never underestimate the dark side of the Source

  9. As a side note... by NeuroManson · · Score: 2, Informative

    Virgin's Richard Branson has pledged $3 billion towards this initiative:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5368194.stm

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  10. He did? by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 3, Informative
    Of course, you're a real fool when the independent commission already came out and had documentation of opportunity after opportunity where bin Laden was offered up to the US Government, but Clinton just wanted it to go away.
    He did? Is this about that guy from the Sudan who offered bin Laden to the US in 1996, which turned out not to be credible?

    'Cause that 9/11 commission report states "[F]ormer Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States." Which looks pretty definite. Except it continues, "Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."

    But you refer to "opportunity after opportunity", so you must be talking about something else, right? It's just that the Sudan claim is the one that I see over and over again. Perhaps you could help me wade through all this "extensive documentation".
    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  11. That makes me want to cry. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's like... foreign oil is an abusive boyfriend. And we're its bitch. So back in the 1970s, there was that oil crisis, a big fight. And we went over to our sister's place, and she was all, "honey, you don't need him", and we cried on her shoulder a lot and said we didn't need him; were going to start a new life without him.

    But the foreign oil bought us flowers, and said it was sorry, and it was morning in America. And now we're back in the same boat we were thirty years ago, and we're acting like no one could have possibly seen this coming.

    You know, Brazil is energy-independent. They followed through on what Carter promised but was voted out before he could deliver on, and the program was plagued by various problems for decades on end... but as of a few years ago, it works. We could have had that. But we didn't.

    And I still don't see what was horrible about that speech. Could someone point out to me why that speech cost him the Presidency?

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:That makes me want to cry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And I still don't see what was horrible about that speech. Could someone point out to me why that speech cost him the Presidency?

      There was nothing wrong with the speech; the problem is with our electorate. The US has been overrun by asshats. Haven't you witnessed the last few elections? People in the US think it's their God given right to drive monster trucks with a big flag flapping in the back. Intellectuals are frowned upon. Creationism is on the ascent. We violate the Geneva conventions. Every day, millions of people pay tribute to bigots like Bill O'Reilly. Greedy self-interested Republicans vs. snivelling cowardly Democrats. Yuck.

    2. Re:That makes me want to cry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      And I still don't see what was horrible about that speech. Could someone point out to me why that speech cost him the Presidency?

      Nothing. That speech actually boosted his approval rating briefly. The reasons for the end of his presidency were a lot more complex, but the kind of pundits who love to say "good news for the Republicans" at every new development prefer to think it was this speech and it's I-Know-What's-Best tone that drove his presidency under, because it fits into the narrative they have built up about "the left."

        He was beaten in the election largely as a result of Saint Reagan's skills at demagoguery and fearmongering. Oh, and the fact that Carter's negotiations for the return of American hostages in Iran suddenly broke down in late '79 and came to an abrupt halt. The hostages were later released at the precise moment of Reagan's inauguration.
        Though congressional investigations hit a wall, sources in both the Carter and Reagan camps were convinced that someone in the Reagan camp had made a deal with the kidnappers to hold the hostages until after the election, so that they could use it as a political hammer against Carter, and to prevent Carter from getting the hostages released near the elections, as it initially appeared he would.

  12. That's good stuff. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I doubt it'll actually convince anyone, but it's nice to see someone actually thinking on his feet.

    'Course, they'll probably cut it down to:

    WALLACE: Blah blah blah bin Laden.

    CLINTON: I failed to get bin Laden
    And that'll be all.
    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  13. The Sudan offer wasn't credible. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 4, Informative

    The 9/11 commission reported that the Sudan offer wasn't credible. And as for what he could do without a Gitmo, perhaps put him on trial? I know it's old school, but it sometimes actually works.

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  14. Meanwhile, back at the ranch... by norite · · Score: 2, Informative
    Those of us in the know are quietly getting on with things....

    http://www.smartveg.com/

    --
    -- Fuck Beta
  15. Creating Jobs by iPodUser · · Score: 2, Funny

    His plan to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and create jobs is this: Generate electicity by hiring a bunch of overweight people to sit on exercise bikes hooked to generators all day. America is overweight in general, so he will also take care of the obesity problem, while generating clean power and reducing unemployment!

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.
  16. Mentioned on The Daily Show the other day by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Clinton was on The Daily Show the other day, chatting with John Stewart about how powerful the internet was for charity (and how much was donated over the Internet for those affected by Hurricane Katrina).

    He noted that if every family in America donated $10-20 to a fund/concern devoted to alternative enegery, we'd be rid of using oil in short order. Good to see he actually moved forward with the idea.

  17. Re:Americathon by j-pimp · · Score: 2, Insightful


    At what point does America need the charity to bail it out? And can we skip all the nasty bits until then?


    I hope a private charity bails the gorernment out. Government is getting bigger and bigger. Nothing seems to be shrinking it. Maybe if Clinton's charity is successful, government will deregulate energy and shrink itself in embarassment.

    Here is what a government should do:
    1) wage war
    2) pave roads
    3) keep a police force
    4) fire and emergency response

    Here is what government should not do:
    1) Healthcare
    2) tax unless absolutly neccessary.

    --
    --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
  18. Re:Pwned? Put down that crack pipe, buddy by OoSync · · Score: 4, Informative
    And if you don't think Clinton ignored bin Laden, why don't you tell us all what Clinton's response to the attack on the USS Cole was?

    As Clinton says in both the interview in question and his autobiography, it took time for the US intelligence community to decide it was Bin Laden that was behind the Cole. Of course, the Cole was attacked a mere 2 months before Bush took office. They didn't know it was Bin Laden til just before the inauguration or afterwards.



    The better question, and the one Clinton asks the interviewer, is what did Bush do after being briefed?



    Here's a hint: it won't take you any time at all to tell us. Literally. No time at all.

    --

    I always get the shakes before a drop.
  19. Actually no. by skids · · Score: 2, Insightful

    GE is mainly expanding its foreign labor wind turbine manufacturing. What you thought they'd go and hire all those steel and line workers the big 3 are laying off? Naw. Everyone knows American labor is overpriced and underskilled.

    Everyone except, say, Gamesa, Suzlon, and Clipper Wind and all the other foreign-owned companies from other industries who seem to have no problem at all opening plants in the U.S. like say Toyota. They seem to be able to turn a profit off American employees. Go figure. Maybe it's U.S. corporate management that is overpriced and underskilled.

    --
    Someone had to do it.
  20. Re:Never thought I would say this... by be-fan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think part of the reason was that Europeans understood Clinton. Clinton thought like a Westerner. He was interested in the economy, trade, diplomacy, and understood that all of these things involved compromises between various entities. This sort of pragmatic mindset has been a hallmark of European thinking for literally hundreds of years. American politics, on the other hand, is intensely ideological. Whereas European politicians argue about things like farm subsidies, American politicians argue about highly abstract (and mostly irrelevent) things like the sanctity of this or that. Europeans are interested in what's "good" or "useful", while Americans are interested in what's "right".

    --
    A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...